Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Philippe, The inherent variables in analog make it very interesting as the exact result is never what you intend; even the zone guys write prodigious articles about saving an image that wasn't what was intended. I wouldn't be too dismissive of the magenta look. We all have seen more unusual color palettes in the fashion world. Don don.dory@gmial.com On 12/3/06, Philippe Orlent <philippe.orlent@pandora.be> wrote: > > Happy to agree :-) > But there still is a nuance in what you and I are saying. > The beauty of a full analog procedure lies in the following: the > result depends of so many variables that it's impossible to perfectly > recreate an image time after time. No matter what amount of > (sometimes frustrating) work you put into it. And that the result is > always coincidental. A piece unique. > Not so in digital. And digital is the way the world is going. Nothing > will stop it. And it's good, too. Because it's easy. > I'm just trying to combine the 'best' of both worlds. > So any time something passes by that adds possibilities to the > recreation of this kind of coincidence in this digitized era, I'm > interested. > Because coincidence is the motor of change, IMO. > By trying to eliminate that coincidence the world will come to a > standstill. Hence: perfection is boring. > Just my opinion, ofcourse. > I think I'm finally ready to embrace to LP's and turntables again ;-) > > Philippe > > P.S.: One could also argue that since reaching perfection is > impossible, coincidence is invoked by trying to reach it. > The result is nevertheless the same. > Look at the M8: purely coincidentally a totally new style of magenta > cast photography emerged... > I bet you'll see it in the fashion magazines within a few months. > (wink wink, nodge nodge, smilies ad nauseam) > > Op 3-dec-06, om 22:12 heeft Henning Wulff het volgende geschreven: > > > At 4:00 PM +0100 12/3/06, Philippe Orlent wrote: > >> OK. > >> > >> To clear some things out. > >> I shoot both digital and analog, with a big preference for analog > >> because it makes me somewhat less just snapping away. Digital is > >> OK, but I use it differently. > >> However, I adore using PS and other digital technology because for > >> me, it gives me more possibilities to get out of a shot what I > >> imagine(d) in my head. And that has very little to do with > >> 'technical' perfection. > >> In other words, the main problem I have with digital is that the > >> image quality is getting too perfect. And if everything is > >> perfect, there is no difference any more. Pretty boring, IMO. > >> Maybe that's a strange thing to hear, but coming for somebody who > >> only started with photography in the 80s, it maybe is not that > >> uncommon: > >> I never had to crave for better quality as some of you might have > >> back in the 50s, 60s or 70s: the quality of film back in those > >> days was seen by some as limiting, and I understand that it must > >> have been frustrating not being able to capture something exactly > >> as one saw it. Hence probably the 'filtermania', postprocessing > >> etc back then. > >> But for me, and looking at such photographs (or printed > >> representations) now, it was the era were photos were not > >> necesseraly technically perfect but had a lot more character and > >> charm. Take Ted's 'Men of the saddle' for instance: technically, > >> these photographs are somewhat dated. But qua content and > >> picturing quality, they still are top notch. I'd even say that the > >> technical 'flaws' in them (color rendition and print reproduction) > >> enhance the feeling of authenticity and quality they have. > >> Same thing with traditional mechanical cameras (of which a pre-M7 > >> M is the ultimate result) and lenses: not perfect, but what > >> character! > >> Try to copy 'le baiser de l'h?tel de ville' with modern material > >> for instance. It's virtually impossible to get that softness and > >> tonal rendition right out of camera with today's cameras, lenses > >> and film. > >> In short (and call me melancholic): I'm not looking for perfect, > >> I'm looking for imperfect. Because that very often makes a part of > >> the charm and personality of a photo. And, as a matter of fact, of > >> a lot of other things in life, too. > >> So if I stumble upon a program that lets me recreate the imperfect > >> feel of films that do not exist any more, that makes me -as I > >> already said yesterday- very happy. > >> Does that mean that I'm against the digital revolution of these > >> last years? > >> Not at all, but I'm confronted and work with that in my > >> professional life every day. > >> If I were a photo pro, I'd probably sing another song. But I'm > >> not, I'm an amateur. (Which BTW origins form the word 'aimer'). > >> > >> Philippe > >> > >> > >> Op 3-dec-06, om 07:03 heeft Henning Wulff het volgende geschreven: > >> > >>>> This is a photograph that I already showed exactly as below > >>>> here. I shot it on Fuji NPS160, with professional development, > >>>> but had it scanned commerially on low res: all flattened out. > >>>> > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/y4o8pq > >>>> or bigger: > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/tbwgw > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> This is the same shot after I let Alien Skin (and some minor > >>>> additional PS alterations) have a go at the original scan today: > >>>> > >>>> as big as above: > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/y373rf > >>>> > >>>> !!! the big ones are in Adobe RGB !!! > >>>> > >>>> Isn't the 2nd one much more distinctive and doesn't it have a > >>>> lot more character? Or am I just overenthousiastic? > >>>> > >>>> Philippe > >>> > >>> Hi Philippe, > >>> > >>> The plug in just seems to increase contrast, throw a lot of the > >>> extended tonal range away and skew the colours to introduce a cast. > >>> > >>> This is usually what I fight to get rid of when scanning. > >>> > >>> Film, properly printed lets me get a huge tonal range and a good > >>> printer was always able to handle the colours properly. My scans, > >>> even with a fairly good scanner, are usually limited in > >>> comparison to projected slides or a good print. > >>> > >>> I'm sorry, but the first image, while not necessarily optimized, > >>> allows all sorts of interpretations, but the second looks like a > >>> poor scan. It is a 'film' look, but one that mimics something I > >>> try to avoid - not always successfully. > > > > hmmmm.... that sounded a lot grumpier than I intended. > > > > The main point still is though that we've been trying to get better > > quality overall, and this plug-in throws a lot of information away, > > reducing the 'technical' quality. > > > > Like you say though, the mood can often be enhanced by 'lesser' > > technical quality, and for the very best photos, it just doesn't > > matter. So therefore, in the ultimate sense, it just doesn't matter. > > > > On a similar note, each time we use a lens like a Thambar or Imagon > > we throw away information right at the start. Also if we use a film > > like 2475 or Kodalith, or IR or even B&W. I've done all of that; > > some of it extensively to get the correct feeling. > > > > Now with Photoshop we can shoot digital or high quality film and a > > good scan and then decide what areas of the picture are important > > and bring those to the fore by throwing the rest away. > > > > So, in a lot of ways I obviously agree with you. :-) > > > > -- > > * Henning J. Wulff > > /|\ Wulff Photography & Design > > /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com > > |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >